25 Years And Strength

[Mormonmaniac]

I do agree the Church is stronger than it was 25 years ago, in many ways.

But, I think there is one way in which the Church is having a hard time.

25 years ago (1989) there were 39,739 full time missionaries (give or take). We had well over 300,000 convert baptisms.

This past year (2014) there were 85,000 full time missionaries. More than twice as many missionaries, and yet we had only 297,000 convert baptisms.

This missionary effort is twice as inefficient as it used to be. What has changed?

Preach My Gospel

Raising the bar

Age change

Are these all oopsies? Should we learn from history and change our practices back to what they once were?

Or Have we arrived at a time where we need to rethink our missionary strategy?

Or edited to add:

Is this plateauing expected?

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

A difference in how families work. I think missionaries are better trained than ever before. Its not the missionary effort, its the lack of fundamental morals within individual homes. For instance- went out recently to collect donations for "Friends of Scouting" and was told in every way possible that they would not give to either the church or the BSA as if it was a plague to be avoided. I did this same collections 20 years ago with great success. Now, not so much. What changed in 20 years? Was it my approach? No, it is that people have less respect for true morals and religion than ever before. That applies to finding new converts as well is harder now than it used to be.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Mormonmaniac

[Mormonmaniac]

I don't know. I know there is a long tradition of placing a lot of importance on growth (more names on the membership list, and if possible more rears in the pews at the same time), but I'm not sure growth is the be all end all of everything. If anything, I think the obsession with growth is a distraction for any church - a distraction from more important missions like feeding the flock spiritually and feeding the hungry physically.

I am against numbers as a way to show "strength". We could convert the whole world but if each are not individually strong and have a good testimony then all those numbers mean exactly "nothing" in the eyes of God.

[stemelbow]

"Staggering" and "alarming" are such subjective interpretations of the growth rate data. Blowing off the decline in growth rate and assessing it in context of the big picture (along with prophesy and prophetic leadership) are two different things. There is also a big difference between "all is well" and having optimism in the face of the signs of the times, having a hope in Christ and an understanding of His work.

 

So the figures needn't be surprising at all; not to me, anyway. Tragic that more people aren't joining? Absolutely, but more or less missionaries isn't necessarily going to help that; we can only work with what we have. The success and the strengthening is in the inviting, and while this is compounded by the accepting, it needn't be diminished by the refusing.

 

I think "notions" typically arise without a reliance on hard data, and are particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. They are also typically independent of of divine guidance.

Well I agree that these terms are subjective interpretations--kinda like the Church being stronger than it has ever been. That's kind of the point, though. How do we gauge strength of a church? We try with numbers and stats, and it works for some, but not others, and there are always more stats to consider.

[stemelbow]

I don't know. I know there is a long tradition of placing a lot of importance on growth (more names on the membership list, and if possible more rears in the pews at the same time), but I'm not sure growth is the be all end all of everything. If anything, I think the obsession with growth is a distraction for any church - a distraction from more important missions like feeding the flock spiritually and feeding the hungry physically.

I can agree that growth itself is all we ought to consider. But it is something to consider when we discuss strength and health of the Church. But if the Church had more members, and more of those were contributing to fast offerings, then perhaps we could be feeding more physically. If more members and more resources stretched across the world, we'd be able to feed more spiritually as well. if we're going to be satisfied as the growth rate declines, then we might want to see about solving some other problems we have--like retention rates, or giving more the poor and needy.

[Yirgacheffe]

I remain amazed that people appear to continue to be surprised that convert baptisms (especially per missionary) have fallen sharply. The missionary program has shifted to a retention program, an extension of the youth program, rather than the missionary program it once was. This is clear in a lot of ways. With increasingly more and more youth "going on missions" but not doing any finding, why would we expect to have more baptisms (or to expect that baptisms don't drop)?

 

This shows how effective "social media missionary work" is. 

 

As far as "service missions," many North American missions are trying this. Missionaries are primarily seeking service opportunities with no emphasis on finding people to teach. My stake has this right now. 

 

I've mentioned this before, but my mission is going to start pulling missionaries during their last six months for "life skills training" (dating, interviewing, resumes, money management, etc.). What effect do you think this will have on convert baptisms?

What does a 20 year old who has been on a mission for 2 years have to put on a resume and what kind of job is he or she qualified for? 

[stemelbow]

A difference in how families work. I think missionaries are better trained than ever before.

Really? I'm not sure that's true, but it'd be interesting to know.

Its not the missionary effort, its the lack of fundamental morals within individual homes.

I'm not sure that's true either. How would we possible know if "fundamental morals within individual homes" has changed in the past 25 years? We're just guessing it seems. All we do know is our growth rate has decreased--and some might in their value judgments say that rate significantly decreased. But the effort by the Church was to poor more kids out there to do missionary work. 2 or 3 years ago we had more conversions with less missionaries. It seems we ought to be able to be on top of how to make this work better. It seems like we're failing in our approach to me.

For instance- went out recently to collect donations for "Friends of Scouting" and was told in every way possible that they would not give to either the church or the BSA as if it was a plague to be avoided. I did this same collections 20 years ago with great success. Now, not so much. What changed in 20 years? Was it my approach? No, it is that people have less respect for true morals and religion than ever before. That applies to finding new converts as well is harder now than it used to be.

Uh...Friends of Scouting have nothing to do with fundamental morals in the home. One might argue, contributing the scouting isn't really helping society at large. They'd rather give to other causes.

[Brian 2.0]

I do agree the Church is stronger than it was 25 years ago, in many ways.

But, I think there is one way in which the Church is having a hard time.

25 years ago (1989) there were 39,739 full time missionaries (give or take). We had well over 300,000 convert baptisms.

This past year (2014) there were 85,000 full time missionaries. More than twice as many missionaries, and yet we had only 297,000 convert baptisms.

This missionary effort is twice as inefficient as it used to be. What has changed?

Preach My Gospel

Raising the bar

Age change

Are these all oopsies? Should we learn from history and change our practices back to what they once were?

Or Have we arrived at a time where we need to rethink our missionary strategy?

Or edited to add:

Is this plateauing expected?

Are we far more interested in getting missionaries on missions then gettings convert baptisms (considering poor retention rates)?

 

is this ever broken down by country or region?

 

I would love to see the covert baptism graph for the US for example. Or the graph for Latin America to see the spike with the soccer baptisms.

[stemelbow]

is this ever broken down by country or region?

 

I would love to see the covert baptism graph for the US for example. Or the graph for Latin America to see the spike with the soccer baptisms.

me too. It might be broken down somewhere but I haven't seen it.

[rongo]

So a couple of years ago we had more converts with far less missionaries than we do today, and we shrug that off because missionaries are doing service projects and playing around on the computer? This seems to touch on my point. It sounds like we need to really consider changing the program. Why send kids out to play on computers when they can do that at home?

I don't shrug it off. That's the point I was making. I think there is a direct correlation between how we are utilizing our missionaries and our conversion statistics. I would do things differently, if it were me (I'm very old school). 

 

I would love to see all missionaries go foreign and have North American units serviced by ward missionaries. But, this soft, non-resilient generation of pansies can't even handle the stateside missions most are called into, with a total de-emphasis on missionary "work" (remember Elder Anderson's talk --- it's not missionary work, it's missionary fun! We were told by a Seventy at stake conference that our duty is to shield the missionaries from all negative experiences and see that they only have positive ones. That's the main reason why I think we're not expecting them to find and face rejection --- and why we let electronics-addicted youth do "social media missionary work."). We would have an epic epidemic of depression, anxiety, early returns, etc. that would make our current state look like a Sunday picnic if we sent 80,000-100,000 North American missionaries to foreign countries, along with the stress of language and culture --- and most of all, the hard reality of preaching the gospel in foreign lands (lots of rejection, but great experiences and some breakthroughs and miracles).

 

As I've said, I think that the purpose of the missionary program has shifted to an attempt to keep young adults connected to the Church and to staunch the flow of young adults going inactive or missing. Not missionary work as it has traditionally been understood.

Edited April 8, 2015 by rongo

[ALarson]

I don't shrug it off. That's the point I was making. I think there is a direct correlation between how we are utilizing our missionaries and our conversion statistics. I would do things differently, if it were me (I'm very old school). 

 

I would love to see all missionaries go foreign and have North American units serviced by ward missionaries. But, this soft, non-resilient generation of pansies can't even handle the stateside missions most are called into, with a total de-emphasis on missionary "work" (remember Elder Anderson's talk --- it's not missionary work, it's missionary fun! We were told by a Seventy at stake conference that our duty is to shield the missionaries from all negative experiences and see that they only have positive ones. That's the main reason why I think we're not expecting them to find and face rejection --- and why we let electronics-addicted youth do "social media missionary work."). We would have an epic epidemic of depression, anxiety, early returns, etc. that would make our current state look like a Sunday picnic if we sent 80,000-100,000 North American missionaries to foreign countries, along with the stress of language and culture.

 

As I've said, I think that the purpose of the missionary program has shifted to an attempt to keep young adults connected to the Church and to staunch the flow of young adults going inactive or missing. Not missionary work as it has traditionally been understood.

Great post and I agree especially with the last paragraph. 

[CV75]

Well I agree that these terms are subjective interpretations--kinda like the Church being stronger than it has ever been. That's kind of the point, though. How do we gauge strength of a church? We try with numbers and stats, and it works for some, but not others, and there are always more stats to consider.

The quote from Elder Cook is, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger." Not "the Church being stronger than it has ever been." There is a big difference between the two that demonstrates the impact of persepctive, orientation and expectations on the significance of facts.

 

I think he was gauging the strength of the LDS Church using an apostolic key that cannot (nor would be) be used scientifically or to gauge the strength of other churches or churches in general; that is not his calling nor the nature of a scientific process.

 

I'm sure the leaders have a mmbership dashboard of sorts that they rely on to assess the overall state of the Church from a membership perspective (from the Lord's perspective, i'm sure it ain't going away!). I also get the impression they are concerned about how well the saints practice such things as fasting and family home evening, and so forth. I think the overall state of the Church can be strong while still having areas of challenge and improvement. After all, the latter-day message is largely one of repentance.

[stemelbow]

The quote from Elder Cook is, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger." Not "the Church being stronger than it has ever been." There is a big difference between the two that demonstrates the impact of persepctive, orientation and expectations on the significance of facts.

I think he was gauging the strength of the LDS Church using an apostolic key that cannot (nor would be) be used scientifically or to gauge the strength of other churches or churches in general; that is not his calling nor the nature of a scientific process.

I'm sure the leaders have a mmbership dashboard of sorts that they rely on to assess the overall state of the Church from a membership perspective (from the Lord's perspective, i'm sure it ain't going away!). I also get the impression they are concerned about how well the saints practice such things as fasting and family home evening, and so forth. I think the overall state of the Church can be strong while still having areas of challenge and improvement. After all, the latter-day message is largely one of repentance.

I agree the Church can be strong with areas of challenge. I'm fine with his subjective claim about strength, even if I mixed up the language and made it something he did not say (sorry about that).

I'm just not sure how a 78% decrease in growth rate is not seen as alarming or staggering.

[JLHPROF]

I'm just not sure how a 78% decrease in growth rate is not seen as alarming or staggering.

 

Why should it be?  We don't truly expect to convert the world.  Eventually we will reach a tipping point.

[Avatar4321]

I think one of the main problems is we sit here discussing why the missionary work isn't bringing more people to the church instead of doing missionary work.

[rongo]

Some of us do. I agree, though, that those who have the right to complain are those who aren't just sitting around pontificating.

[CV75]

I agree the Church can be strong with areas of challenge. I'm fine with his subjective claim about strength, even if I mixed up the language and made it something he did not say (sorry about that).

I'm just not sure how a 78% decrease in growth rate is not seen as alarming or staggering.

As an organism matures, its growth rate slows. The Church can be viewed in the same light, but more in line with how I think the Lord looks at things (as presumptuous as that is), so can the "seven seals" or more broadly the entire world as a whole. Plus, the work is proceeding on the other side of the veil at a faster rate than ever before, as well as the compounding effect of the living who make temple covenants on subsequent generations who are born in the covenant, who in turn do more temple work.

[stemelbow]

Why should it be?  We don't truly expect to convert the world.  Eventually we will reach a tipping point.

Just to be clear, on this point, we are, if we generously pretend the number of members on record are all "Mormon", .2% of the world population. So, according to your logic, we are at a tipping point by seeing far less than 1 out of every 100 people being LDS. We might get away with saying we are .1% of the world right now, but that might even be stretching it.

[stemelbow]

I think one of the main problems is we sit here discussing why the missionary work isn't bringing more people to the church instead of doing missionary work.

YOu really think the tiny fraction of commenters here, if they replaced any participation here with missionary work, would bring the growth rate back up? What about all the missionary work that commenters here do already?

[rockpond]

I made this point on the other thread, but a greater resistance among the world at large to the gospel truth is not necessarily an indication that the Church itself is weakening.

 

The most that can be said is that the Church is up against challenges of a sort that haven't been faced before.

 

I certainly agree that we are up against challenges that haven't been faced before.

 

Scott... I typed this response on the other thread of the same topic but it was locked before I hit the "post" button.  I still wanted to share it with you because it's relevant to this thread and I think you were asking some critical questions that I tried to answer:

 

Regarding the increase in temples over the past 25 years and some of those being the smaller temples that Pres. Hinckley commissioned... I understand that a smaller temple does not mean less faithful members.    The capacity of the added temples, however, is relevant in your analysis because you are comparing it to the increase in membership.

 

The factual conclusion from a 3x increase in temples is that we own more real estate.  Beyond that, you are making interpretations.  An increase in the number of temples is not a "solid indicator" of strength in the church.  Additional data is required to support the assumptions you are making.  We don't know what has happened to temple attendance rates in that time.  We don't know if there was a corresponding increase in temple worthiness.  Those are subjective conclusions you are drawing.  Perhaps the threshold for TR worthy members within a geographic area was lowered during that period of time.  Maybe our leaders made a conscious decision to build more temples with the hope/expectation that temple attendance would increase to fill them.  And maybe it did or maybe it didn't.  All of these data points are unknown to us.

 

Obviously deaths will come no matter how strong the church is (until such a time when death is no longer with us).  But the deaths & removals percentage was almost double for 2014 as compared to what is was a decade ago.  Certainly there is something else going on there because if the LDS mortality rate had really doubled in ten years, it seems we'd likely be wanting to do something about it.  I use the term "removals" as shorthand for resignations + excommunications.  Where do I get this information?  From the statistical reports provided each April.  The Brethren don't give us the data to be able to separate out deaths from removals.  But you can take the increase in membership and subtract out convert baptisms and new COR to determine how many deaths/removals we had.

 

And yes, the increasing number of members per ward/stake might be an intentional decision.  It also might be an indicator of increased inactivity.  We simply don't know and cannot conclude either way without additional data.

 

You are now making assertions.  Elder Cook is making assertions.  Some critics out there somewhere have made assertions.  None have supplied solid data to support their assertions and the data released each year in April conference is too ambiguous to completely support any of these assertions.

[Gray]

John Dehlin just posted  that he has an inside source who is in a position to know the stats, confirming that activity rates are up (however that is defined). For what it's worth. 

[Mystery Meat]

John Dehlin just posted  that he has an inside source who is in a position to know the stats, confirming that activity rates are up (however that is defined). For what it's worth. 

 

I said the same thing in the other thread, and everyone ignored it. But I will say it again here: not only are activity rates up, but we are retaining more of the people we convert as well.

[Mystery Meat]

I think one of the main problems is we sit here discussing why the missionary work isn't bringing more people to the church instead of doing missionary work.

 

Looking at the number of convert baptisms is only part of the story. See my above comment: reactivation and retention are on the up right now. Those are good signs that our missionary efforts are effective.

[rockpond]

I said the same thing in the other thread, and everyone ignored it. But I will say it again here: not only are activity rates up, but we are retaining more of the people we convert as well.

 

I missed it in the other thread.  Do you have data to support the statement?  I'd like to add it to the data that I keep.

[Gray]

Looking at the number of convert baptisms is only part of the story. See my above comment: reactivation and retention are on the up right now. Those are good signs that our missionary efforts are effective.

 

Missionaries in my area have focused a lot more on reactivation than I ever did as a missionary. I think that's been the push recently. 

[stemelbow]

The latest I heard was a Des News article that was quickly squashed, saying that activity worldwide is 36%. That's actually pretty good--all things considered and compared to other religions. Is it higher than that now? Or is 36% the higher figure from what it used to be?

It's good to hear it's up, but up from where and how much? Same with retention. If up, from what? To what?